AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01081
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
IN THE MATTER OF:
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her deceased husband’s entitlement to a Home of Selection (HOS)
move be restored so that she may ship her household goods (HHG)
and vehicle to Turkey.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was married to the service member who served honorably for
six years and was medically retired due to an aggressive form of
cancer.
His official military retirement date was 5 Jul 2006. Her
husband passed away on 13 Feb 2012. His retirement pay was
their only source of income and since his passing she finds
herself without the means to move back to her native country.
Changing her deceased husband’s shipping entitlement will allow
her and her two year old daughter to return to her home in
Turkey where her only remaining family members reside.
She does not have very much. She has a small car, which is her
only source of transportation. She is submitting this request
to allow her to move without having to sell everything she owns.
In support of her request the applicant provides a personal
statement, copies of DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty; DD Form 1173, Identification and
Privilege Card, a Certificate of Birth, Certificate of Death,
and her Marriage Certificate.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Per Special Order ACD-00858, dated 26 May 2006, the deceased
member was relieved from active duty and permanently disability
retired effective 6 Jul 2006. As a result of his medical
retirement, he effected two personal property shipments: HHG
from Japan on 26 Aug 2006, to storage in California, for 11
months, then to Texas for final delivery on 12 Jul 2007; HHG
from storage in South Dakota for delivery to Texas on 2 Jan
2007. The member remained in Texas until he passed away on
13 Feb 2012.
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
PPA HQ/ECAF recommends denial. ECAF states the Air Force is
governed in matters pertaining to the shipment of HHG for its
military members by Volume 1, Joint Federal Travel Regulation
(JFTR). JFTR Volume 1, paragraph U5365-A authorizes shipment of
HHG upon retirement from the last or previous permanent duty
station, a CONUS designated place, storage, or any combination
thereof, to the member's HOS. Paragraph U5318 advises that HHG
transportation must not be made for a member's convenience to
some other place for re-transportation later. The entitlement
to ship HHG was exhausted when the shipments were moved to the
HOS upon the member’s retirement. Although the circumstance is
unfortunate, there is no statutory authority on which to re-ship
property without new orders.
The complete ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 19 Jun 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit
D).
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation
2
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered
with this application.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application
in Executive Session on 13 Sep 2012, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-01081:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, PPA HQ ECAF, dated 8 Jun 2012.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 2012.
Panel Chair
Panel Chair
Member
Member
3
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04576
CG B-202023, dated 4 Dec 1981, advises that civilian employees married to members of the uniformed services cannot each receive an entitlement for shipment of the same HHG. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05924
On 17 March 2011, the Joint Personal Property Shipping Office Northeast (JPPSO-NE) notified the applicant that his request for an extension was granted until 9 July 2011, a total of 180 days, and that any additional storage time past this date may not be authorized. On 15 June 2011, the applicant was advised that his HHG shipment from Florida in storage at government expense will expire/convert on 9 July 2011. On 17 June 2011, AFPC/DPSIAR notified the applicant and JPPSO-NE that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05924
On 17 March 2011, the Joint Personal Property Shipping Office Northeast (JPPSO-NE) notified the applicant that his request for an extension was granted until 9 July 2011, a total of 180 days, and that any additional storage time past this date may not be authorized. On 15 June 2011, the applicant was advised that his HHG shipment from Florida in storage at government expense will expire/convert on 9 July 2011. On 17 June 2011, AFPC/DPSIAR notified the applicant and JPPSO-NE that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00067
He initiated shipment of household goods prior to this temporary duty (TDY) assignment in order to alleviate stress on his wife and because of the short time frame between his return from TDY and permanent change of station (PCS). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: PPA HQ/ECAF recommends partial relief. The complete PPA HQ/ECAF evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01263
The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service records, are contained in the Air Force evaluation at Exhibit B. JFTR paragraph U5012-I further clarifies that an extension must not be authorized for approval for more than six years from the date of separation or release from active duty unless a member’s certified ongoing medical condition prevents relocation of the member for longer than six years from the retirement date. Based on the above, they believe an...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01115
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01115 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retirement order be corrected to include a permanent change of station (PCS) without a change of assignment in order to utilize his one move entitlement for a temporary move to Washington state, then, to his home in South Carolina. ECAF states...
Thus, once the applicant's HHG shipment departed Germany, there was no opportunity to divert the shipment until it arrived at the port of Long Beach. VP-119,872 with a net weight of 13,364 pound was charged a total of $969.00 for excess di ore of Abilene TX Loma Linda CA vice the authorized destination he ade c. After arriving in'the US,-traveled to Tulsa OK. On 1 June 1994, he visited the Traffic Management Office (TMO) at Dyess AFB TX and requested the HHG shipment that was en route to...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02814
The entitlement begins on the date the orders are issued and terminates one year from the date of termination of active duty. However, evidence shows the applicant agreed to have his HHG shipped to Lancaster, CA, upon his separation from active duty and subsequently requested an extension of storage until 23 December 2005. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that...
According to JPPSO, the applicant’s HHG shipment exceeded the maximum authorized weight allowance and in accordance with paragraph U5340, JFTR, she is liable for all transportation costs arising from transportation of HHG in excess of the authorized allowance. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant, after the death of her husband, a former service member, shipped HHG from Virginia to Colorado with a net weight of 29,200 pounds, including 3,057 pounds for the shipment of a POV. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007243
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). An Application for Shipment and/or Storage of Personal Property, dated 8 January 2007, shows in item 10 (Destination Information) that the applicant elected to ship his HHG to Dallas, Texas. In response to the request for reimbursement of the cost of shipping his HHGs from Texas to Arizona, the DA G-4 authorized a partial payment to the applicant of $1,175.33, which was the maximum cost that would...